An Introduction to Post-Argumentalism

The accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist sector finds feminism to be, on balance, pernicious. The reasons for that verdict are many, and have been widely talked about. For a start, know this: we mean to draw a line against the encroachment of feminist power into the non-feminist world. Since we find that power pernicious, we naturally find ourselves at odds with almost every aspect of it. This naturally raises the question of what is to be done, which brings us to the topic of the moment: post-argumentalism.

Post-argumentalism is the stage “beyond argument”, the stage you embark upon after you deplete the possibilities of debate or persuasion in a given setting. It is a kind of existential standoff in the face of an intractable other: the other may find your stance unacceptable but you find his equally so – and there you stand!

Since argument has not settled the issue and apparently never will, you are excused from such activity and may henceforth either agree to disagree with the other, or enter a state of “war” with the other.

None of this holds any great mystery. If you have ever dealt with a fanatical cultist or an incorrigibly pigheaded person of any kind, you will perfectly understand the base dynamic. And what is true of a solitary individual can as well be true of an entire group or subculture.

The intractable other that now confronts us is the subculture called feminism. As said, we find feminism pernicious – and that implies that we have already settled the debate to our own satisfaction.

We see no reason to keep arguing in hope of persuading this intractable other – we’ve long since persuaded ourselves, and that should suffice. We know whose opinion we value, and whose judgment we trust. In all cases we cherish our own conclusion because we deem it best, and if we deemed otherwise we’d have concluded otherwise.

Argument is useless if it never ends, and worse than useless if it puts a freeze on necessary plans and actions. To tolerate such a freeze would seem to imply that we cannot act without a go-ahead from the intractable other. Yet a moment’s thought might reveal that the other is likewise constrained by us – and there we stand! How to break free of this impasse? Apparently not by further persuasion efforts.

What are we waiting for? Will another three, five or twelve years of argument finally clear the road so we can set plans and actions afoot? What force – legal, moral, physical or otherwise – prevents us from turning our back and going our way immediately?

Feminism has been a dynamic force in the world, and never shy about setting plans and actions afoot. Nor has it been dutiful about consulting others and securing their agreement to such plans and actions. The point is that feminism itself is post-argumental. Feminism has trodden upon the alterity of the non-feminist sector, and the non-feminist sector may now, by rights, serve feminism likewise. That is where non-feminist people stand.

We should add that feminism is an entrenched system extending through the social and political fabric. It is a major power structure, individual feminists are stakeholders in it, and we delude ourselves if we think the stakeholders in a major power structure will be talked out of their advantage by sweet reason alone.

The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn until one side says to the other: “Yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will adopt your position as my own and rearrange my life according to what it requires of me.”

No, that is not how the world works.

Such being said, our project is not to reprogram the deep ideological conviction of every purported feminist. Rather, it is to make such people modify their outward behavior so that the pernicious implications of their ideology will no longer translate into real-world consequences. They can believe any pernicious thing they want to believe, but they must cease acting upon such belief.

In so stating, we exercise a mandate. Such is the power of post-argumentalism – it nullifies the presumptive moral authority of feminism and commandeers authority on its own account. In this way, post-argumentalism is a revolutionary procedure, the starting point for anything at all that you could rightly call a revolution.

To nullify authority is a rightful deed when authority is intractable due to fraud or villainy. Post-argumentalism makes no fuss about this. It does the job brusquely, unceremoniously, unapologetically. To make omlettes, you break eggs.

Both war and revolution have this in common, that they spring to life when reason and negotiatory discourse prove unavailing. The difference is that war is a contest between parties purportedly equal at the outset, whereas revolution is a contention where an upstart knocks authority off a pedestal.

In the end, both war and revolution are a fight, and both involve the element of violation. The rules of war dictate that the parties violate each other until one side gives up, while the rules of revolution dictate that one system of rules gets violated so another system can replace it.

The non-feminist revolution is both a revolution and a war, and is not undertaken for light and transient causes.

As non-feminist men and women we must ask ourselves: what did we originally hope to accomplish by arguing with feminism? Supposing we could have persuaded this intractable other, what did we hope to gain? What did we hope to obtain that we couldn’t have gotten elsewise, in due course? What prevented us from simply taking it?

If something belongs to us, we must simply overpower the intractable other in order to secure what is rightfully ours. Correct? In that case, what is the good of persuasion – to talk the other into giving us what is rightfully ours? To talk the thief into handing back our stolen property?

We know that this intractable other, feminism, is a taker who never quits taking and gives nothing back at the behest of mere persuasion. We ought to craft our politics in the light of that understanding. In other words, we ought to craft our politics post-argumentally.

We do not argue with feminism, we simply tell it things – and if it will not listen or modify its course, we hold it accountable.


Posted by: Fidelbogen, a.k.a The Counter-Feminist

Editor at

Twitter account: @fidelbogen

What is Feminism? It is what we say it is


Have you ever noticed that the feminists are eager to tell us what feminism is, but not so keen to learn from us what feminism is? Therein lies the crux of a sore difficulty. It is a simple point but a matter of prime importance, so I want to establish this very, very clearly and keep it in view always.

We must ask: by what authority do they hold a monopoly privilege to define feminism in the first place?How do they get away with this? Is it by the grace of God or some equally royal power? We reckon not. Or does the word “feminist” confer a special mandate the moment you pin it to yourself?Again, we reckon not. Both theories involve magical thinking, which is best avoided.

That leaves just one explanation: that people who stick the word “feminist” to themselves have simply commandeered their monopoly privilege by exercising it unopposed for many years. They do it and nobody speaks against it, so they keep doing it.  We think this fits the case elegantly, and that no other conclusion is possible or necessary. The feminists have gotten away with this for so long because nobody has called their bluff.

That said, what objective consideration bars us from inspecting feminism by our own lights and calling it as we see it? Who is to say that feminism is not indeed that very thing, or pattern of things, that we might clearly discover by using our own eyes and our power of critical judgement?

Most of all, what effectual force bars us from adopting a non-feminist definition of feminism and operating entirely on that basis? I submit that nothing ought to deter us, and I am aware of no feminist who has ever made a compelling case otherwise.

What is feminism really? Since reality (or “the real”) enters into the composition of this question, we suppose it must enter likewise into the composition of the answer. Accordingly, our search for an answer ought to probe something real, and what could be more real than the real world of objective facts and deeds?

However, before we go further, let’s be generous and entertain (as a thought experiment) some of the abstract notions about feminism which feminists themselves entertain. The canonical definition of  feminism, as written in dictionaries, runs more-or-less as follows:

Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

There is a difficulty here. Feminism is defined as a”doctrine” advocating a particular outcome, but if you call it “masculism” instead of “feminism”, and make “women” and “men” swap places in the sentence, you will end with a slightly different doctrine advocating the very same outcome.

Accordingly, if outcome is what matters, there would be no special reason to favor “feminism” over “masculism” or the reverse — in theory, both roads lead to Rome.

The canonical definition describes a thing which is conceptually unequal right out of the gate. Either “masculism” or “feminism” would load the issue unevenly on one side or the other, so the only linguistically unbiased solution would be the phrase “sexual equalism” or something like that.

Yes, we have heard the feminist answer to this. A feminist would tell you that the board of power and privilege is tilted specifically against women (not men), that the board must be set level, that the word feminism merely acknowledges this.

However, their response begs the question because it takes feminist doctrine for granted. In non-feminist terms, it is not a FACT that the board is tilted against women. It is simply an assertion that one may argue for or against, and it happens that powerful arguments have been and will continue to be made against it.

Indeed, ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question and always will be, and if you assert the contrary, that too may be challenged.

To summarize: taking feminist self-conception on feminism’s own valuation has no value for us, except as a thought experiment. We are not feminist, and our approach to understanding feminism should make allowance for this.

A cardinal rule of semantics is that “the word is not the thing”. When we talk about feminism, we refer not to the popular understanding of feminism as a word, but to the holistic factuality of feminism as a thing, ecologically embedded in a web of relations with other things. When we speak of this, and the likes of this, we are probing something real in our quest to define feminism.

To “probe something real”, means to monitor reality when, where and how it really happens, and to extract real conclusions with pragmatic cash value. This keys upon the THING called feminism as opposed to the WORD called feminism. If there is any meaningful defining to be done, let it begin here.

We therefore discard the canonical definition of feminism because we find it both misleading and useless.

Our non-feminist critique is radical. We suspend, on principle, every claim or theory which feminism puts forward, and we do this “on the fly”, the instant such a thing pops up in conversation. We love to remind feminists that “endlessly repeating something doesn’t make it true.”

We also suspend the language in which feminist claims or theories are formulated. In this way, we dismantle the entire feminist thought-world and build again upon the basis of a non-feminist epistemic plan. Finally, we come to a reality-based understanding more in line with non-feminist experience.

For many years feminists have told the world what feminism is, but that order of subject and object is now reversed and the consequences are revolutionary. It is now the world’s turn to tell feminism what feminism is – such is the battle for feminism’s soul. The meaning of “feminism” is up for grabs, and non-feminist men and women everywhere are free to benefit from this.

The feminists needn’t bother whining that we non-feminists “can’t do that”. Have they not realized that what they permit to themselves they license equally to others?

They should spare themselves the trouble of whining, because we aren’t listening. Neither are we believing. The point is that it’s too late — the plan is now swung into action. We manifestly are doing that, which refutes the notion that we “can’t” do it!

When we (as non-feminist men and women) speak of feminism, we speak the truth. Who can refute this? Who  can discredit the basis of our non-feminist authority? We have eyes, we have ears, we have rational minds, and we are free to employ these faculties. We trust the facts to speak with precision on their own
account, and we trust ourselves to register this with equal precision.

Feminism not only self-defines, it props up and predicates its self-definition with pronouncements about the nature of the world. Guess what? WE ARE THAT WORLD! As such, we reserve the right to answer back with pronouncements about the nature of feminism.

So in the end, feminism is what we say it is. That’s right. If feminists have got the nerve to tell us what we are, then we are more than nervy enough to return the compliment! And if they persist in ignoring non-feminist input on the question “what is feminism?”, they are being solipsistic and deserve all the more to be told what feminism is.

There are many reasons that we may justifiably relieve the feminists of their self-definition privilege. It’s a rich vein of ore, it runs deep, and it would please me to see lots of people working that vein. Yes, I want to share the wealth, but I don’t want to do all the work for you — so grab your picks and shovels and head on down there.

Posted by Fidelbogen

Editor at

Twitter account @fidelbogen



The Non-Feminist Advantage

The men and women of the non-feminist sector compose at least 80% of the world’s population. Clearly we are in the majority, and that alone gives us an edge. But there is more to the story.

Feminism, the force which opposes us, has not only the disadvantage of smaller numbers but the positive burden of being an aggressor, branded by its collectivity.

Putting this somewhat simply, feminism is informed by a political worldview, an ideology, and an underlying purpose which unfolds predictably in the fullness of time. For these reasons alone, feminism is an entity subject to an accounting for its ideas and actions, and for the consequences of those ideas and actions.

In other words, feminism is a moral collective.

The non-feminist advantage is this: that the mere absence of feminism is not a moral collective. A person may indeed be tainted by participation in the feminist project, but lack of feminism bestows no comparable distinction upon the individual who simply lacks feminism.

Rather, lack of feminism is a primordial status — a default condition of planet Earth and the entire cosmos. “Non” feminism envelops feminism like an endless ocean with a life of its own, and to be “non-feminist” means only that one is not a feminist – that is all. Non-feminism is a non-thesis and a non-position; as such it requires no defending.

There is no original sin in not being a feminist, and there is no acquired sin from history. Non-feminist men and women are individuals and their sins are their own, to each uniquely. Some non-feminists are excellent people, others are atrocious people, but they are individuals, and when the time comes they will stand alone before their non-feminist maker to answer for their non-feminist transgressions.

You cannot bring any moral imputation to bear upon a non-feminist merely because that person is not a feminist. You CAN, however, bring such imputation to bear upon a feminist – yes, merely because that person is a feminist. Never forget this.

I am aware that this brief talk leaves much unexplored, but what can you expect? It’s brief. The talk aims only to plant a simple but critically important idea in your brain — an idea that shall prove foundational to everything we do, or talk about, henceforth.

That idea is, that feminism is subject to a moral inquest while we, the rest of the world, are not — that is the non-feminist advantage. We were here first, then feminism showed up and started doing things without consulting us and we, the rest of the world, have some thoughts about that.

We will voice those thoughts, whether any feminist likes it or not. We have nothing to answer for, but boy-oh-boy, do we ever have questions!

So stay tuned. Always stay tuned.

Posted by: Fidelbogen, a.k.a The Counter-Feminist

Editor at

(Twitter account @fidelbogen)